Olivier has carved away much of that ambivalence: his Hamlet is fixed in meaning, and I don't find it to be the most satisfying meaning. Hamlet is a deeply ambivalent play and Hamlet himself an ambivalent character, the most complicated and at times vague figure in Shakespeare (which puts him in the running for the most complicated figure in all of English-language theater). It is, to be honest, not curated in the ways I would myself have preferred. His choices all line up, moving the text towards a very distinct and coherent end this is not just an edited Hamlet, it is a thoughtfully and carefully curated Hamlet. I have my ups and downs with Olivier, but I'd never deny that the man knew Shakespeare, and had put a great deal of thought into what this particular play can be made to do to an audience. The "full" version of Hamlet is ( pace Kenneth Branagh) unreasonably long and was almost certainly not performed as such during Shakespeare's lifetime considerable slicing must be done to make it a dramatically manageable object, and that slicing must be done judiciously and purposefully. These changes, especially the former, have led to plenty of criticism in the years since the film premiered, but for myself, I'm all for it. Olivier's approach to preparing Hamlet for the screen started by mercilessly chopping material out: he removed the characters of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern entirely, and left no trace of Denmark's impending war. And I believe this to be true even though both film have some pretty unmissable problems. Still, Shakespeare movies are prone to a certain self-conscious airlessness, and between Olivier's Hamlet and Orson Welles's Macbeth, 1948 was an exciting year for filmmakers attempting to combat by using their respective plays as launching points rather than prisons. This approach was and remains uncommon, and it's not in and of itself, a mark of quality Olivier's own Henry V from 1944 is certainly closer to the "just stage the play" approach than his Hamlet, and I prefer that film to this one in most of the ways that the films can be compared. But this does represent a model of conceiving of the whole business of "Shakespeare on film" as a primarily cinematic endeavor, using the play as a means of getting at a good motion picture rather than clearing the runway for the text with a few movie-like touches around the edges. It's not necessarily a question of direct influence: despite the film's commercial success and sizable haul of awards (both the Golden Lion and the Best Picture Oscar, a combination that would not be seen again until The Shape of Water, 69 years later), it didn't do much to convince producers that filming Shakespeare might be a good financial bet. Print run of 1500.One would be hard-pressed to overstate the importance of director-producer-writer-star Laurence Olivier's 1948 film of Hamlet in the history of screen adaptations of William Shakespeare's plays. Single territory for trade global for academic. Print and/or digital / eBook, including for use in on-line academic databases.
Image for Magazines and Journals Book use Image for Website or Social Media Magazines and Journals Web display, social media, apps or blogs. Image for Presentation Website or Social Media Personal presentation use or non-commercial, non-public use within a company or organization only. Not for commercial use, not for public display, not for resale. Personal Prints, Cards, Gifts, Reference. german german german german german german All rights reserved 2022 / Bridgeman Images Keywords
Description A SEQUENCE FROM THE MOVIE “” HAMLET”” DIRECTED BY LAURENCE OLIVIER - 1948 - IX INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL IN VENICE - Photo credit © Archivio Arici.
0 kommentar(er)
